User talk:AnotherPseudonym

Welcome!

Hello, AnotherPseudonym, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Material conditional

I undid your “reworking” (but the only grammar change). Feel free to discuss restoration of its less controversial pieces at talk: Material conditional. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnotherPseudonym, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AnotherPseudonym! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding possible Carl Hewitt sanctions violation. The thread is ‎User:AnotherPseudonym and Carl Hewitt. Thank you. —— Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been allowed to remain with us?

Hello AnotherPseudonym!

I revisited the NLP article today. This had me giggle-lol'ing:

″AnotherPseudonym, I mainly agree with you, and the abstract of Slut’s paper in interesting. But you should read the paper, not only the abstract. So, the question is not about Slurt...″

The only variation missing was "Slurp"! I also noticed that the debate was raging, once again. I chided a little, mentioned martingales and thrashing, and came to visit your talk page. I was saddened when I saw your summoning to the Administrator's Tribunal. The upshot seems to have been to allow you to remain. I hope so!

I read C. Hewitt's biography article. I wish I were C.H., PhD too! It is a shame that he has such an awful past history here on WP. I don't think he's being unfairly treated, as I did a search on his last name on the Admin board archives. One quick glance at the first 20 entries returned was sufficient. Still, though, it is sad. He was a key, or maybe lead, designer/creator of Prolog. He's doing fun stuff even now that's he's emeritus, specifically, work on what seems to be homomorphic encryption. If you WERE he, Carl Hewitt, it would be rather impressive, as you are extremely conversant with NLP concepts (a very different field), and with legitimate behavioral psychology and possibly psychiatry. You also write very fluently, and are extremely patient, all of which would be unusual, if you were a distinguished, no-longer-young yet still-active, former professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT!

Wikipedia is remarkable. It is stuffed to the gills with awfulness and cronyism and outrageous behavior, but in other areas, seems to bring out the very best in people. I don't believe in the crowd-sourcing, knowledge is free, wisdom of the cloud thing; it ultimately seems to be fueled by the hard work of unpaid people who are poor, energetic, bright, have internet access but not much else. Nevertheless, Wikipedia and even more so, StackExchange are the only instances of it really working as described. Sorry, I should also include MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) and forums. They're good too, but some of those people are paid, I presume, hope. I wish we were paid too!

Okay, I'll wander off now. I think I should stay away from the NLP article. It will only lead to heartache. You've made a fine effort, I just wanted to tell you that. I want to give you one of my personalized barnstar-substitutes, but I don't have enough insight about you to do that. Maybe in due course of time. See you later, Alligator!

P.S. If this is too lengthy-indiscreet-embarrassing, feel free to blank it after reading.

;o)

--FeralOink (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FeralOink! Yes, all is well, one of the admins made a hasty generalisation based on my edit of the material conditional article and my mere mention of paraconsistent logic. Perhaps my cheeky username contributed to that. But that is understandable as I was to find that Hewitt had made a pest of himself on WP (which I thought diminished him). I assure you I am not Carl Hewitt (but do wish I had his CV). I do know something of computer science but not more than an undergraduate. Thanks for the compliments. I agree with your observations about "crowd-sourcing, knowledge is free, wisdom of the cloud thing" (for the want of a better description). Unless individuals make an effort to source material from books, academic journals, newspapers, transcripts etc that are not yet freely available online we start seeing a degenerative process of self-reference. Not only is the same error replicated and disseminated but accurate statements slowly mutate with each paraphrasing. Best regards. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility again

This diff alone breaches 3 WP policies that I know of. I thought we were making progress. Can you please rein it in? WykiP (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should give the wikilawyering a rest and instead reflect on your own behaviour and your lack of substantive contribution to Wikipedia. You and Eturk burden other editors with your ignorance and educating you two takes time and effort. Eturk proposed the ignorant idea that in relation to a noun that there is a difference between defintion and description, that it was possible to define a noun without also describing it. He then proceeded on a still-born extended critique of the article on the basis of this infantile error of logic. You just went along with him presumably because you smelled an opportunity to WP:GAME. Did you even give any thought to the matter? You could have looked around you and found countless counter-examples. "How would I define a keyboard without describing it?"; "How would I define a mug without describing it?"; "How would I define a spoon without describing it?"; "How would I define sugar without describing it?"; "Have I ever seen a definition of a noun that wasn't also a description?". You could have looked up a noun in a dictionary to see that what you found was a just a terse description. But no. Also you have no regard or respect for asiduous study and knowledge. Why do you try (always unsuccessfully) to contradict me on a technical point about NLP? You admit you know next to nothing about the topic but the Wikilawyer in you keeps coming out. When I try and inform you (as per NLP strategies) you try and throw it in my face and you do so always from a position of ignorance. You can't seem to resist the urge to try and score a point and that seems to be your sole objective. Your abuse of WP:CLAIM is another case in point. That originated from Eturk again IIRC and again you just grabbed it an ran with it without any real thought on the matter. It appeared that you were so excited at the point of winning at WP:GAME that you didn't see the or in "by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence", it was as if you saw what you wanted to see. It would have been useful if you instead corrected Eturk and the other editor about their mis-reading and mis-construal of WP:CLAIM but you just went with it. Similarly your patently ludicrous suggestion that an excerpt from transcript of a judges decision amounts to POV-pushing and then your utterly bizarre wikilawyering that implied that there could be some other source on a court decision. The pattern that emerges from your behaviour is that you are here to WP:GAME, to score points and you are willing to thow everything under the bus in order to do so. Another example is in relation to Damien Raczy. English is not his first language so I was very patient with him. His reading comprehension failed him in relation to Sturt and he also made an error of logic in deeming the difference between technique and intervention significant in relation to Sturt et als conclusion. You could have stepped in an closely read Sturt et al and cleared up Damien's confusion. But again you didn't. You presumably assumed Damien was correct -- even though his English is bad -- and went along with it, hoping to score some vicarious points in your WP:GAME. It is your behaviour and foul attitude that needs needs to be reined in. If you want to make a real contribution to the article -- not as a Wikilawyer -- then you need to study and think. I see you doing neither, all I see is WP:GAME. If you want "progress" then quit with the WP:GAME. Make an effort to scrutinise what all editors propose and argue not just those which you have decided are on the "other side" in your WP:GAME. Also if you want "progress" then WP:CONCEDE. Neither I nor any of the other editors will forget the various pieces of bullshit you have written in the talk page. At least if you admit your error you will demonstrate good faith and the admission will start to discipline you so that you don't make the same error again. But you do neither, you don't admit your errors and you make them again and again. Also bear in mind Feral Oink's words, it takes time and effort to read books, locate and read journal articles, create citations from the templates, check and re-check sources, compose good prose etc. It takes no work to be a wrecker, to delete other people's work and it is offensive and wanton to do so without justification. The reality is that people like you -- people that just delete -- are not the backbone of Wikipedia and are entirely superfluous to the project. Neither you nor Eturk have made a substantive contribution to Wikipedia. Eturk is worse than you in that he inserts falsities and promotional links into articles. I don't need to make "progress", I have made positive and substantive contributions to Wikipedia. You need to make "progress". AnotherPseudonym (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk at NLP

Hey, calm yourself, no need to argue anymore. We can just take the case to WP:RfC. Don't give him anymore excuses to nail you for being uncivil. Ki Chjang (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would redact the 'hypocrite' paragraph. And no need for an RfC there is no consensus for change, just leave them with brief responses ----Snowded ^TALK 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I think you were right by the way although I think its more self-referential delusion than hyp----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)ocrisy! However that change gives no ammunition to a passing Admin who does not bother to read the history, or one of the NLP admins of whom there are a few[reply]

Well, not just that, but also name-calling (e.g. saying that he's a wikilawyer even though he seems to be one). He's obviously making his claims out of his emotions, not reason, hence why he's unable to come up with premises to argue for his point. You'll just hurt him more if you continue to argue with him, since his claims are part of his feelings. Hence why I insist on administrator involvement... I think David Gerard is an administrator so he maybe can help. Ki Chjang (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is spot on. Ahale (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Szasz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psychogenic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still processing.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/kansascity/obituary.aspx?pid=165884706#sthash.XOoldjBG.dpbs Doesn't mention that we've moved Dad into an Alzheimer's care facility, or that we closed up their home. Two months tomorrow. I still have not even gotten around to reading what you posted, and now probably never will. That's what you wanted, right? htom (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@htom I don't know you so I am not going to give you perfunctory condolences—I don't think someone can genuinely feel sympathy for someone they don't know. To me, insincerity is offensive so I won't inflict that on you. I'm not twisting your arm to force you to post snide remarks on the NLP talk page. It is of your own volition that you perch yourself at the metaphorical perimeter of the talk page and snipe and bait—I don't compel you to do that so please don't try and make your personal problems my problems. In all of the time that I've been editing the NLP page you have not made one substantive contribution to the article. So in effect your family tragedy has divided you from your usual sniping and baiting; are you asking me to lament the absence of that nuisance? You aren't well-read on NLP and that is clear yet you present yourslef as Bandler and Grinder's advocate. You've apparently created this puerile narrative in your head where the evil enemies of NLP like me are hurting poor Bandler and Grinder and it is up to you to defend them. You don't need to read all of what I posted to convince yourself that B&G do think that NLP is "scientific"—you need only read the article. Grinder wouldn't be referring to Kuhn and Bandler wouldn't be talking about holography if they didn't make scientific claims for NLP. My description of NLP is sympathetic, neutral, accurate and heavily substantiated so your innuendo is without basis. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deconstruction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Szasz

See talk page and respond. Thanks. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Don't. You are so convinced of your religious ideology. Your myth. What you believe is what you see. Ha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l8LJjy5B2g

24.253.64.178 (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AnotherPseudonym. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]